What new features in Lightroom 6 ?

[bitm07]

With Adobe Photoshop Lightoom 6 expected to be released later this year, what new featured would you like to see in the new version ?.

[SeanPT]

Good morning Captain obvious! Of course it can RUN on a laptop (and even OS X Laptops! You forgot about those!) but I'm talking about being mobile with my Surface Pro 3. My main library sits on my workstation. I should be able to take my Surface Pro 3 out and do all of the same stuff I can do with Lightroom Mobile on iPad on my SP3. But I can't. I am still scratching my head at how the iPad got a mobile review mode before PCs -- something that has been requested since the early Lightroom betas!

[bitm07]

seanpt wrote:

Good morning Captain obvious!

Apologies.  Given your first day membership status, I mistook you for new Lightroon user

[SeanPT]

First day using Adobe communities with this new creative cloud account.

[andre_seattle2]

The multiple monitor support could use some developer TLC. Currently LR only supports one additional monitor. I have an iMac with 2x 27" NEC's outboard, I could definitely use a Loupe monitor in both portrait and landscape on color calibrated displays while the main interface ran on the iMac screen. And LR5 is incapable of recognizing my current 27" NEC in portrait orientation as a legitimate display for the second monitor. Every time LR5 launches I get the second display window on top of the main interface on the iMac screen. I have to move it over to the portrait monitor, and resize it every time. If I make the mistake of selecting Window/Secondary Display/Show, LR unhelpfully puts the secondary display fullscreen on the landscape NEC, exactly where I don't want it. Talk about frustrating.

I have asked for better multiple monitor support since before LR3 came out, along with several other users. I guess feature requests sometimes get acknowledged and other times do not.

[geiris]

Please improve the slideshow part! multiple songs! some effects ect. this part is where i show off and sell to my customers!

[sadmyst]

A way to access the EXIF info via mouseover (ala Aperture) instead of having to go back to the library module.

Even better: Combine the Library and Develop modules. It's stupid that they are separate. Just combine them (and their tabs) and make all the closed tabs smaller to make more room. They are stupidly cartoon-large as it is.

Also… improve the print module. Study the one in Aperture. Notice the intelligence displayed in autosizing things based on paper size without having to make print profiles for every damn time you want to change paper, orientation or borders.

Lastly: Dear GOD fix the Web panel. Get rid of the Flash and replace with HTML5 please. Wake up and smell the 2014 already. No one uses it because it's rubbish. How many websites have YOU seen made from the Web panel? Thought so.

[Rikk Flohr: Inactive]

sadmyst wrote:

A way to access the EXIF info via mouseover (ala Aperture) instead of having to go back to the library module.

EXIF Data? Have you tried the the [ I ] key for information? You can customize it and it holds two screens worth of info and doesn't require return to the Library.

[BKKDon]

Personally I think it is quite pointless to compare Aperture to Lightroom as it is a dead product and it's workflow was almost non-existent as Lightroom has a different modes (not STUPID) for each step in image processing. Also there are lens profile and geometry corrections in Lightroom, CA correction, etc. etc and, of course, Aperture was dumped for iPhoto because of the following statistics:

Among photographic pros using the Mac,

In 2007 Lightroom was nearly twice as popular as Aperture

In 2008 it was nearly three times as popular

In 2009 it’s approaching four times as popular

By the numbers:                                  2007       2008      2009

Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in           66.5%     62.2%    57.9%

Lightroom                                          23.6%     35.9%    37.0%

Aperture                                              5.5%      7.5%      6.3%

On the Mac platform only:

Lightroom                                           26.6%     40.4%    44.4%

Aperture                                             14.3%     14.6%    12.5%

Of course there is one specific thing I would like to see added apart from HTML web pages which are there:

LEVELS: Would love to see levels included along with curves.

[sadmyst]

Personally I think it is quite pointless to compare Aperture to Lightroom as it is a dead product and it's workflow was almost non-existent as Lightroom has a different modes (not STUPID) for each step in image processing. Also there are lens profile and geometry corrections in Lightroom, CA correction, etc. etc and, of course, Aperture was dumped for iPhoto because of the following statistics:

Among photographic pros using the Mac,

In 2007 Lightroom was nearly twice as popular as Aperture

In 2008 it was nearly three times as popular

In 2009 it’s approaching four times as popular

What the hell does popularity have to do with anything? Many Lightroom users (of which I am one) freely admit Aperture's user interface was world's beyond Lightroom.

I used Aperture for a while and switched to Lightroom because it has better noise reduction, speed and support and works on both Windows and Mac. But from a design standpoint it's a bloody mess. (As almost all Adobe products are in versions 1-8)

Some might argue that there aren't ANY adobe products that have a decent interface. Usable? Yes. Perfect? About as far away as you could get.

Of course there is one specific thing I would like to see added apart from HTML web pages which are there:

You mean MORE html web pages? They have HTML web pages now they are just extremely basic and mostly crap. As though they were a complete afterthought because Adobe thinks flash is "so great." (Even though people are clawing at their eyes to get away from it.)

[sadmyst]

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I mean EXIF, ITPC, ALL of the metadata and EVERYTHING you can (optionally) see in the right column in the library module.

I figured this would be fairly obvious as you can already see the shooting info in the right column right under the histogram in the develop module. It doesn't however tell you what mode you were shooting in or whether the flash fired… etc. (But I want the develop module to be able to show EVERYTHING right down to the copyright and metadata.)

[areohbee]

sadmyst wrote:

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I mean EXIF, ITPC, ALL of the metadata and EVERYTHING you can (optionally) see in the right column in the library module.

I figured this would be fairly obvious as you can already see the shooting info in the right column right under the histogram in the develop module. It doesn't however tell you what mode you were shooting in or whether the flash fired… etc. (But I want the develop module to be able to show EVERYTHING right down to the copyright and metadata.)

I recommend familiarizing yourself with Lightroom plugins, and for things you do a lot - wire up a keystroke.

For example, Jeffrey Friedl's Metadata Viewer plugin can display all exif metadata (of most-selected photo) in a heartbeat, while you're in the develop module, in a nicely formatted color-coded table.

If Windows, you can use AutoHotkey and have such info displayed with a single keystroke combo, without switching modules. There are auto-key tools on Mac too.

And ExifMeta (plugin by me, free) makes exif metadata available for display in Library module (or lib-filters, or smart-collections..) - making it just a 'g' or 'e' away when developing.

That said, I agree: comprehensive exif metadata support (built-in) would be appreciated by a lot of people: of all my plugins, ExifMeta is, by far, the most frequently downloaded..

Summary: Lightroom lacks features - but many are provided via plugins! - thank Adobe for the SDK, and fingers crossed for robustening come Lr6, and 7...

PS - for custom metadata viewing presets - I recommend Jeffrey Friedl's Metadata Viewer Preset Editor plugin.

Disclaimer:

========

I'm really not pushing my plugins, nor Jeffrey Friedl's, it's just that many of us Lightroom users DO have instant access to all exif metadata, and I can't help but want to inform - but if plugin-powered metadata is not satisfactory, then so be it - feature request for built-in support noted: good idea..

========

Rob

[sadmyst]

I appreciate that your trying to help. (Thank you for the lack of snark by-the-way. Many people here assume "if your having a problem or are not enjoying the status quo something is wrong with you.") I've been using LR for QUITE some time and am aware of at least 97% of it's controls and feature set. (Because I use most of them)

However… I have a bit of an issue when it comes to non-image-editing based plug-ins. I am very familiar with the availability however I find them to be either:

1) A general lack of quality. (I just avoid these entirely)

2) Acceptable but broken as soon as a new version of Lightroom comes out. (Which is really bizarre considering their simple non-image editing function.) Other plug-ins that have this issue tend to be uploaders. (And I don't just mean because the service changed their protocols) Although that happens a lot also. I really wish Adobe would push some kind of open standard for uploading to image host services. Between the service changes and keeping up with LR updates I can pretty much flip a coin to determine which week it will work.

For this reason I try to use as few non-commercial and/or "official" third party plug-ins as humanly possible.

However that said… I have not used that particular plug-in (for the reasons stated) Obviously you have so perhaps you can tell me if it suffers from any of the above issues?

(I would expect that "metadata" wouldn't change very much but this is Adobe we're talking about.)

[areohbee]

Fair enough.

sadmyst wrote:

I have not used that particular plug-in

Not sure which plugin you mean (I mentioned 3 of them in previous post).

PS - If you have problems with plugins, most authors will try to fix promptly, if you report the problems.

Rob

[sadmyst]

Hopefully the "robustening" of the SDK will result in more plug-in year-over-year sustainability. I'd rather they get the infrastructure and interface more polished before trying to bolt on any more features.

[areohbee]

sadmyst wrote:

plug-in year-over-year sustainability

Tips for maintaining functional plugins:

* Read the documentation, and follow instructions (for some plugins, this is critically important, others less so..).

* Run the latest version of plugin (authors constantly fix problems, some of which get documented, some don't).

* Run the latest version of Lightroom (Adobe fixes bugs in Lightroom too which affect plugins, and also: plugin authors are always using the latest version of Lightroom to develop/test their plugins).

* Report problems to plugin author. This is perhaps the most important of all. Often, plugin author can get things straightened out in a split-second, sometimes longer, but sometimes never if you don't report them - never assume somebody else did or will (or the author will stumble into it) - most people don't (and sometimes authors don't encounter them, for a variety of reasons..).

PS - It's worth considering the primary operating system of the author who wrote the plugin. Most authors do 99% (if not 100%) of their development (and testing) on their primary (or only) OS, and although most things work the same on both platforms, not all things do..

Cheers,

Rob

[Geoff the kiwi]

Personally I have never seen complaints about either Rob's or Jeffrey's plug-ins or even many others.

I would recommend making your comments/suggestions at Photoshop.com as that is where they are most likely to be seen and heard. I appreciate your points, so might others.

[AnOpticalView]

On the whole I agree with most of what Sadmyst is saying.  But he/she should note that any form of criticism even when valid is leapt upon in this rather pathetic forum by embedded bullies with attached titles to give them 'clout'.  They must be small minded people - perhaps hysterical creatives?

[Keith Reeder]

DumbMarine wrote:

On the whole I agree with most of what Sadmyst is saying.  But he/she should note that any form of criticism even when valid is leapt upon in this rather pathetic forum by embedded bullies with attached titles to give them 'clout'.  They must be small minded people - perhaps hysterical creatives?

Once a troll, always a troll, eh?

As has been pointed out before, the people you're chararcterising as "embedded bullies with attached titles to give them 'clout' " are just people who know more than you about the subject matter - putting you right (again) about something doesn't make them "small minded people" (I mean - you must get that a lot), but your interminable whining and flamebaiting - invariably in a context where what you write is just ridiculously uninformed (and frequently just plain untrue) - says a hell of a lot about how small-minded you are.

[John_jcb]

Some things I would like to see in LR and LR Mobile

1.  The ability to mask areas I do not want impacted by the graduated filter.

2.  The ability to import into a collection so that new photos would appear in LR mobile with no user action required.

3.  The ability to take notes in LR Mobile and have them available in LR.  Would eliminate need for a notepad when reviewing proofs with a client.

[sadmyst]

Overall my basic wants are:

1) Condense the Library and Develop modules into one module and make the panels smaller. (They are too big for laptops as it is anyway)

2) The web panel is a joke. Either give us some real web tools or stop pretending you care about web and just get rid of it altogether.

3) The print module needs to be more intelligent. Currently it's like a steampunk style printing press with gears and knobs.

[Ants Koel]

1. Although it has been stressed by other users before me, keep the stand-alone licensing possibility. Keeping backups off-site makes sense but not relying on daily operations.

2. Simple inbuilt EXIF editor would be handy. I have a lot of manual lenses and editing aperture/focal length/lens model data straight in LR (not in external editors like Exif Pilot or similar) would be nice.

[bob frost]

Hi ants,

It is very unlikely that Adobe will allow editing of exif data in LR; it has

made a principle of not touching raw files such as nefs. Although it has

broken its principle by allowing editing of Capture Date in raw file - if

you specifically check this in Prefs. And it doesn't mind chewing up raw

files and turning them into DNGs. When is a principle not a principle??

So using a raw editor such as ExifTool, or ExifGUI, or PhotoMechanic seems

the only way in the immediate future, unless someone at Adobe has a

'Damascene conversion'!!

You should also note that Nikon has now adopted the principle of storing

edits in sidecar files instead of in the raw file. It's new editor Nikon

Capture NXD uses sidecars from what I read. That is a big change from its

previous Capture NX2.

Bob Frost

[artministry]

I would like to see integration of more image types -- specifically, Illustrator and PDF -- that can be opened as bitmaps. I would also like to see additional metadata search/cataloging ability as in Phase One Media Pro. Finally, I'd like to see complete metadata editing capability in Lightroom mobile -- this last would make my life much easier.

[javieros]

+1 Face Recognition

Subscription only to Lightroom would be helpful

[ShuckyD]

I would totally love to see Smart Collections that span catalogs.... reason is I have over 100k images in one LARGE SLOW CATALOG and it's because since 2006 I built my workflow upon Collections for all of my various genres of photos.  I do like to process on smaller catalogs like when I do work on my laptop and merge the changes with my desktop, but my main catalog is getting way too big and I wont see performance gains until this happens.  Then I would separate out years and not need to worry or remember which year which photos were in, etc.  Yes from the technical side it may need an additional repository/database, but that should be rather easy to do.